Tick v. Tick

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Tick v. Tick

526 N.E.2d 244, 403 Mass. 1002, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 216

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedAugust 1, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 526 N.E.2d 244 (Tick v. Tick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tick v. Tick, 526 N.E.2d 244, 403 Mass. 1002, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 216 (Mass. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, Sabina Sonya Tick, appeals from the dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction and of proper service, of her complaint for contempt. A resident of New York, the plaintiff sought enforcement of a judgment for divorce. The defendant, Eugene E. Tick, is a resident of Connecticut. Having transferred the case to this court on our own motion, we affirm.

We believe that our analysis in Morris v. Morris, ante 1001 (1988), is dispositive. The plaintiff failed to meet the threshold jurisdictional requirement of the Massachusetts long arm statute. Actions as “to all obligations or modifications of alimony, custody, child support or property settlement,” where long arm jurisdiction is sought over the defendant, must be instituted by a resident plaintiff. G. L. c. 223A, § 3 (g) (1986 ed.). See G. L. c. 223A, § 3 (h) (1986 ed. & Supp. 1987); Morris, v. Morris, supra. Thus, it is unnecessary to reach the issues of proper service or of personal jurisdiction over this defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff, Sabina Sonya Tick, appeals from the dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction and of proper service, of her complaint for contempt. A resident of New York, the plaintiff sought enforcement of a judgment for divorce. The defendant, Eugene E. Tick, is a resident of Connecticut. Having transferred the case to this court on our own motion, we affirm.

We believe that our analysis in Morris v. Morris, ante 1001 (1988), is dispositive. The plaintiff failed to meet the threshold jurisdictional requirement of the Massachusetts long arm statute. Actions as “to all obligations or modifications of alimony, custody, child support or property settlement,” where long arm jurisdiction is sought over the defendant, must be instituted by a resident plaintiff. G. L. c. 223A, § 3 (g) (1986 ed.). See G. L. c. 223A, § 3 (h) (1986 ed. & Supp. 1987); Morris, v. Morris, supra. Thus, it is unnecessary to reach the issues of proper service or of personal jurisdiction over this defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 N.E.2d 244, 403 Mass. 1002, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tick-v-tick-mass-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack